1 ergativity, unergatives and phases pritha chandra, gurmeet kaur
Post on 03-Jan-2017
240 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Ergativity, Unergatives and Phases
Pritha Chandra, Gurmeet Kaur & Usha Udaar
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi
Email: pritha@hss.iitd.ac.in
This paper discusses ergative subject constructions with unergatives in the perfective
aspect in an Indo-Aryan language Punjabi. Our main thesis is that ergative case
marking on unergative subjects is determined neither by (i) the transitivity of lexical
(unergative) verbs nor by (ii) the case valuing properties of light verbs. We present
evidence suggesting that Punjabi unergatives are transitives with overt cognate/implicit
objects and yet take ergative subjects optionally. Moreover, light verbs – that as lexical
verbs, take obligatory ergative subjects – either opt for optional ergative or obligatory
nominative in unergative-light verb complexes. We propose that ergative is an inherent
case assigned to the external argument in the specifier of v, in instances when
nominative case valuation by C-T is prevented by phase boundaries.
Keywords: Unergatives, Transitivity, Light verbs, Inherent case, Phases.
1. Introduction1
Morphological ergativity is a well attested phenomenon in Western Indo-Aryan
languages (henceforth, WIALs) including Hindi-Urdu (Bhatt, 2007; Davison, 2004;
Kachru, 1987; Kachru & Pandharipande, 1978; Mahajan, 1990, 1997, 2012; Mohanan,
1 The data reported here was collected from native speakers of Punjabi, residing in the cities of New Delhi
and Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh in two phases-the summer and the winter of 2013. The following abbreviations
are used in this article: nom, nominative case; erg, ergative case; acc, accusative case; dat, dative; abl,
ablative; 1, first person; 2, second person; 3, third person; sg, singular; pl, plural; m, masculine gender; f,
feminine gender; hab, habitual; perf, prefective ; pres, present tense; pst. past; tr, transitive; dem,
demonstrative, N, noun.
2
1994; Subbarao, 2012 among others), Kutchi Gujarati (Patel, 2007), Marathi (Deo &
Sharma, 2002; Pandharipande, 1997), Marwari (Khokhlova, 2000, 2002), Nepali (Bickel
& Yadava, 2000) and Punjabi (Bhatia, 1993; Bhatt, 2007; Butt and Deo, 2001). We
begin with Hindi-Urdu examples here, since it is one of the more widely studied
languages among WIALs.2
1. laɽkaa rotii aa hai
boy.nom bread.f.sg eat.hab.m.sg be.pres.3.sg
‘T e boy e s bre d.'
2. laɽke-ne rotii khaayii hai
boy-erg bread.f.sg eat.perf.f.sg be.pres.3.sg
‘T e boy s e en bre d.'
Hindi-Urdu primarily shows nominative-accusative pattern (1) in the imperfective,
with the nominative subject triggering person, number and gender agreement on the
2 WIALs lso differ from e c o er in e w y ey m r eir ‘erg ive’ subjec s (see Bhatt, 2007; Butt
and Deo, 2001; Deo and Sharma, 2002 and Udaar, in progress for more details). To illustrate, while
Hindi-Urdu and Haryanvi overtly mark their subjects ergative in the perfective and allow object-verb
agreement, Marwari and Kutchi Gujarati do not overtly ergative case-mark their subjects but allow object-
verb agreement. Additionally, Punjabi and Marathi show person-based split, wherein only third person
subjects are ergative marked, but the verbal agreement in the perfective is always with objects. Finally,
Nepali allows both unmarked nominative and marked ergative subjects to trigger full phi-feature
agreement on the verb.
3
verb-auxiliary complex. Morphological ergativity is exhibited in sentences in the
perfective aspect (2). The subject is marked with an overt case morpheme –ne and fails
to trigger agreement with the verb-auxiliary complex, which instead agrees with the
object in number and gender.3
For aspect-based split languages, other than perfectivity, transitivity of the lexical
verb is also sometimes taken as a crucial determinant of ergative case marking on the
subject (Bobaljik, 1993; Comrie, 1978; Davison, 2004; Dixon, 1979, 1994; McGregor,
2009 among others). The observation is that the subject of an intransitive clause is
never marked ergative, unlike the agent/subject of a transitive clause, which is marked
with an ergative case. The transitivity-ergative case marking link, however, is not
attested cross-linguistically. While some languages as Warlpiri (Bittner and Hale, 1996;
Levin, 1983) ergative case mark their subject in the absence of an overt object (3),
others as Inuit (Bittner and Hale, 1996; Woolford, 2013) exhibit a strong overt object
(plus object shift) requirement for ergative subject marking, see example (4).
3. Ngarrka-ngku ka yunpa-rni
man-erg pres sing-nonpast
‘T e m n is singing.’ (Levin 1983:149)
4. Juuna-p miiqqa-t paar(i-v)-a-i
3Aspect-based split ergativity is also found in many other (non-WIA) languages (see Coon and Preminger,
2012; DeLancey, 1981; Dixon, 1994; Tsunoda, 1981 for more details).
4
Juuna-erg child-pl(nom) look.after-ind-[+tr]-3sg.3pl
‘Juun is loo ing f er e c ildren.’ (Bittner and Hale 1996:17)
The link between the lexical verb's transitivity and ergative case marking on the
subject has also been extensively debated in the literature on WIALs. Mohanan (1994)
presents instances of intransitive (unergative) predicates in Hindi-Urdu taking ergative
subjects (5), while arguing against this association.
5. jɔn-ne s
John-erg cough.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n coug ed.’
Amritavalli (1979) and Platts (1874) among others instead link morphological
ergativity in Hindi-Urdu to the transitivity of a light verb. They suggest that in a
compound verb construction composed of a lexical verb and a light verb, it is the
transitivity of the light verb that determines ergative case on the subject. Consider
example (6), w ere e r nsi ive lig verb ‘ o e’ llows n erg ive m r ed subjec .
Contrast this with (7), where the subject cannot be marked ergative due to the
un ccus ive n ure of e lig verb ‘ o go’.
6. kəbir-ne vo kitab jəldi se paɽʰ li
kabir.erg dem book.f.sg.nom quickly read take.perf.f.sg.
‘K bir re d boo quic ly.’
7. kəbir(*ne) vo kitab jəldi se paɽʰ gəya
5
kabir.nom(*erg) dem book.f.sg.nom quickly read take.perf.f.sg.
‘Kabir read that book quickly.’ (Mahajan 2012: 205)
Mahajan (2012), on the other hand, contends that while the transitivity of the
lexcial verb is crucial in structures like (6), the ergative case actually comes from the
light verb. Light verb ‘ o e’ - that as a lexical verb licenses obligatory ergative case to
the subject - retains this case in complex predicate constructions and assigns it to the
unergative subject.
This paper carries forward this debate on the ergative-transitivity link, drawing
primarily on unergative constructions with ergative subjects in the perfective in Punjabi,
a lesser studied WIA language. We show, with simplex unergatives (minus light verbs)
constructions, as illustrated in (8) and complex unergatives (with light verbs), as
illustrated in (9) - that morphological ergativity on subjects does not rely on the
transitivity of the lexical predicate nor on the case valuing properties of the light verb.
8. kuɽii-ne h sseyaa
girl-erg laugh.perf.m.sg
‘T e girl l ug ed.’
9. kuɽii-ne h ss di aa
girl-erg laugh give.perf.m.sg
‘T e girl l ug ed.’
6
We demonstrate that simplex unergatives have overt cognate objects or implicit
ones, and yet they only optionally mark their subjects with ergative case. Moreover, the
presence of light verbs – that as lexical verbs obligatorily take ergative subjects - does
not necessarily imply ergative marking on subjects of complex unergatives. We argue
that ergative case is assigned to the external argument by a theta-assigning verbal
head v. Our alternative representation has this v1P selected by a higher aspectual head
(v2P) that is phi-defective (-person) in the perfective. This together with phase-sliding (à
la Gallego, 2010) of the lower v1 into the higher v2 creates the conditions under which
accusative case on the v1-v2 complex goes to the internal argument and an inherent
ergative goes to the external argument. Nominative case is valued by T on the external
argument in the specifier of v1P when v1-v2 phase sliding does not take place.
We organize the paper as follows. In section 2, we lay out the details of
morphological ergativity in Punjabi. Section 3 first summarizes the main debates
surrounding the transitive/intransitive nature of unergatives cross-linguistically, and then
presents evidence for an underlying transitive representation for Punjabi unergative
predicates. It ends with the observation that the transitivity of unergatives does not
determine ergative marking on the subjects. In the fourth section, we present instances
of complex unergative constructions with different light verbs, and argue that light verbs
also do not determine the ergative case-marking on subjects. Section 5 starts off with a
7
critical assessment of three prominent analyses proposed for morphological ergativity.
We then present our phase-based alternative analysis. Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Morphological ergativity in Punjabi
Punjabi, like Hindi-Urdu, shows morphological ergativity in the perfective aspect
(Bhatia, 1993; Bhatt, 2007; Butt and Deo, 2001).4 The transitive subject in the perfective
construction in (10a) is obligatorily marked with ergative –ne, and cannot trigger verbal
agreement. The verb instead agrees with the unmarked (accusative valued) object in
number and gender. In the imperfective domain, the subject of the transitive clause is
case valued (with a phonetically null) nominative and agrees in number, gender and
person with the verb-auxiliary complex, as is shown in (10b).
4Punjabi shows ergative case marking only on third person subjects, and not on first and second persons
as shown in (i).
(i) *m -ne u-ne/o-ne rottii kh d d ii
*1-erg/*2-erg/3-erg bread.f.sg(O) eat.perf.f.sg
‘I You (s) e e bre d.’
Two existing analyses for person based split are Legate (2012) and Coon & Preminger (2012). While
Legate posits that all pronominals are valued ergative in the syntax, but only 3rd person subjects realize
the case morphologically; Coon and Preminger provide a clause-bifurcation analysis, where 1st/2nd person
subjects, unlike 3rd person subjects, are located in the higher case valuing domain, where they get an
absolutive case value. We are yet to investigate which of these accounts explain the person split in
Punjabi. We leave this question open for future research.
8
10 (a) munde-ne rottii kh d d ii
boy-erg bread.f.sg eat.perf.f.sg
'The boy ate bread.'
10 (b) mundaa ro ii nd aa e
boy.nom bread.f.sg eat.hab.m.sg be.pres.3.sg
'The boy eats bread.'
Unlike the transitive domain, where the subject is invariably ergative marked in
the perfective aspect, in the intransitive (unaccusative) domain, ergative subjects are
never llowed wi verbs ‘ o f ll’, ‘ o come’ (11).5
11. kuɽii/*kuɽii-ne diggii/aayii
girl.nom/*girl-erg fall.perf.f.sg/come.perf.f.sg
‘T e girl fell c me.’
Unergatives, on the other hand, show a lot of variation with respect to ergative
case marking on the subject in the perfective. While unerga ives ‘ o spi ’ nd ‘ o scr c ’
take obligatory ergative subjects (12); ‘ o d nce’, ‘ o coug ’ nd ‘ o l ug ’ do so
optionally (13-14). O er unerg ives ‘ o climb’ nd ‘ o w l ’ optionally permit ergative
5Perlmutter (1978) classifies intransitive verbs into two types – unergatives and unaccusatives, with
different syntactic properties. In Punjabi, we observe that unaccusative verbs ‘ o f ll’, ‘ o come’, unli e
unergative verbs ‘ o d nce’, ‘ o l ug ’ f il o form (i) inabilitative passives, (ii) reduced relatives, (iii)
passives and, also (iv) fail to host cognate objects (see Bhatt, 2003 and Richa, 2008 for
unergative/unaccusative diagnostics in SALs).
9
subjects in the presence of a cognate object (15a-b). In the imperfective, all these
predicates unambiguously opt for nominative subjects (16).
12. kuɽii-ne/ *kuɽii hukeyaa/khurkeyaa
girl-erg/*girl.nom spit.perf.m.sg/scratch.perf.m.sg
‘T e girl spi scr c ed.’
13. kuɽii n ccii ŋgii ssii
girl.nom dance/cough/laugh.perf.f.sg
‘T e girl d nced coug ed l ug ed.’
14. kuɽii-ne n ccey ŋgey / h sseyaa
girl-erg dance/cough/laugh.perf.m.sg
‘T e girl d nced coug ed l ug ed.’
15 (a) kuɽii/*kuɽii-ne caɽhii
girl.nom/*girl-erg climb.perf.f.sg
‘T e girl climbed.’
(b) kuɽii-ne/ kuɽii caɽhaayii caɽhii
girl-erg/girl.nom climb.f.sg climb.perf.f.sg
‘T e girl climbed climb.’
16. kuɽii/*kuɽii-ne khurak/nacc/caɽh rayii e
girl.nom/*girl-erg scratch/dance/climb stay.prog.f.sg be.pres.3.sg
'The girl is scratching/dancing/climbing.'
10
This paper is primarily concerned with ergative subject constructions in (12)-(15).
One of its goals is to examine whether the transitivity of the lexical unergative verb is
responsible for ergative marking on the subject. We therefore need to first and foremost
assess whether unergatives in Punjabi are underlying transitives. This question is
addressed in the following section.
3. Unergatives as transitives?
Opinion is divided on whether unergatives are underlying transitive predicates.
Bobaljik (1993), Hale and Keyser (1993), Laka (1993), Mahajan (1987), Mithun (1991),
Ortiz de Urbina (1986) and Uribe-Extebarria (1989) posit that unergative predicates are
transitives with an object NP. This view is captured in the Implicit Object Conjecture
(17).
17. The Implicit Object Conjecture (IOC)
All unergatives have direct objects.
To illustrate, Bobaljik (1993) and Laka (1993) argue that unergative predicate ‘ o
d nce’ in a split-ergative language Basque is an underlying transitive, based on its
ability to occur with a cognate object (18).
18. Emakumea-k dantza hau dantzatu du
woman-ERG dance this.ERG dance AUX
‘T e wom n d nced is d nce.’ (Laka 1993:154)
11
The same observation is made for unergative ‘ o sneeze’ in Hindi-Urdu (19), by
Mahajan (1987) and Bobaljik (1993), where the unergative predicate occurs with a
cognate object, and the subject is ergative marked.
19. anup-ne [kaafii-zorkii chiiNk] chiiNkii
Anoop-ERG very-loud sneeze.ABS sneezed
‘Anoop sneezed very loud sneeze.’ (Bobaljik, 1993: 38)
Preminger (2012) contests these claims by presenting predicates eskiatu ‘ski’
and disdiratu ‘shine’ in Basque that do not have corresponding nominals *[eskia]No and
*[disdira]No. He questions the presence of implicit cognate objects for all simplex
unergative predicates in the language.6 In the same breath, he also contends that the
presence of ergative agreement (the 3person ergative ɸ in (20)), which is generally
taken to indicate the presence of an implicit object, is also not a valid diagnostic.
6Preminger (2012) contends that while simplex unergatives without light verbs are unambiguously
intransitives (i), complex unergative predicates with light verbs are transitives (ii).
(i) jon-ek dantzatu d-ɸ-u-ɸ
John-erg dance-Prt 3.Abs-sg.Abs-have-3sg.erg
‘Jo n d nced.’
(ii) Jon-ek dantza egin d-ɸ-u-ɸ
Jon-erg dance do 3.abs-sg.abs-have-3sg.erg
‘Jo n d nced.’
12
Basque unaccusatives (21) also exhibit ergative agreement morphology (the second
person ergative morpheme -k)7, although they fail to host implicit objects.
20. jon-ek dantzatu d-ɸ-u-ɸ
John-erg dance-Prt 3.Abs-sg.Abs-have-3sg.erg
‘Jo n d nced.’
21. jon-ɸ eror-i d-ɸ-u-k
jon.abs fall.perf 3.abs.sg.abs.have.2.sg.erg
'John has fallen.' (Preminger, 2012:1)
In short, Preminger presents arguments to show that simplex unergative
predicates in Basque do not take direct objects, implicit or otherwise and hence are not
underlying transitives, contra Bobaljik (1993) and Laka (1993). The lack of any
consensus on the transitive nature of unergative predicates within a single language
(here Basque) raises further doubts on how unergatives cross-linguistically should be
treated. In other words, there is no clear picture on whether unergatives cross-
linguistically are underlying transitives or pure intransitives with a single (external)
argument.
With this debate in the background, we now turn our attention to the simplex
unergatives in Punjabi (12-15) and show that they unambiguously satisfy the criteria for
7Preminger notes that (21) is an allocutive agreement construction, where the auxiliary shows agreement
with the addressee of the speech act. This explains why the second person –k ergative morphology is
used here.
13
transitivity. We also demonstrate that unaccusative intransitives in the language fail all
relevant transitivity diagnostics.
3.1 Punjabi unergatives are underlying transitives
In is sec ion, we rgue Punj bi unerg ives ‘ o spi ’, ‘ o l ug ’ nd ‘ o climb’
are underlying transitives, based on their ability to (i) host cognate objects that license
verbal agreement and, (ii) trigger telicity effects. We also provide evidence for implicit
objects through adjectival modification test.
To begin with, we observe predic es ‘ o spi ’, ‘ o l ug ’ nd ‘ o climb’ llow
cognate objects (22-24). Note that the subject is obligatorily marked ergative with
predicate ‘ o spi ’ (22), bu op ion lly marked with ergative for all other unergative
predicates (23-24), when a cognate object is present. Cognate objects trigger gender
and number agreement on verbs in ergative subject constructions.
22. mariiz-ne/*mariiz khun w lii uu u ii8
patient-erg/*patient.nom blood wala.f.sg spit.f.sg spit.perf.f.sg
‘T e p ien sp blood .’
23. jɔn-ne/jɔn raavan-d ii hassi h ssi/h sseyaa
John-erg/John.nom ravan-gen.f.sg laugh.f.sg laugh.perf.f.sg/laugh.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n l ug ed R v n’s l ug er.’
8Following Kidwai (2012), we unders nd ‘w l ’ s deno ing non rivi l se of p iring of color ribu es
to ‘spit’.
14
24. jɔn-ne/jɔn ucci caɽhaayii caɽhii/caɽheyaa
John-erg/john.nom high.f.sg climb.f.sg climb.perf.f.sg/climb.perf.m.sg
‘*Jo n climbed ig climb.’
In contrast, unaccusative verbs ‘ o f ll’ nd ‘ o come’ dis llow cogn e objec s
(25-26). These predicates have obligatory nominative subjects that trigger person,
number and gender agreement on the verb (27).
25. *jɔn digg diggeyaa
John.nom fall.N fall.perf.m.sg
‘*Jo n fell f ll.’
26. *jɔn aanaa aayaa
John.nom come.N come.perf.m.sg
‘*Jo n rrived n rriv l.’
27. jɔn/*jɔn-ne diggeyaa/aayaa
John.nom/*John-erg fall.perf.m.sg/ come.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n fell c me.’
Going back to the unergative predicates in Punjabi, we also observe that cognate
objects trigger telicity effects (see Borer, 1994; Dowty, 1979, 1991; Krifka, 1992; Tenny,
1987, 1994 and, Verkuyl, 1972, 1989, 1993, for cross-linguistic discussion of the
relation between telicity and direct (count noun) objects). Take (28-30) for illustration,
15
w ere elic re dings wi e dverbi l ‘in one our’ ob in in e presence of cogn e
objects.
28. mariiz-ne ikk nte vicc bo waari khuun waalii u u ii
patient-erg one hour in many time blood wala.f.sg spit.f.sg spit.perf.f.sg
‘T e p ien sp blood m ny imes in n our .’
29. jɔn-ne i nte vicc caar nicch nicchiiy
John-erg one hour in four sneeze.f.pl sneeze.perf.f.pl
‘Jo n sneezed four sneezes in n our.’
30. jɔn-ne i nte vicc ucci caɽhaayii caɽhii
John-erg one hour in high.f.sg climb.f.sg climb.perf.f.sg
‘Jo n climbed ig climb in n our.’
Cognate objects in these unergative constructions can also be modified using
adjectives. The overt objects agree in number and gender with the adjectives (31-33).
31. mariiz-ne g ŋd ii uk u ii
patient-erg dirty.f.sg spit.f.sg spit.perf.f.sg
‘T e p ien sp dir y spi .’
32. jɔn-ne pyaarii hassii h ssii
John-erg lovely.f.sg laugh.f.sg laugh.perf.f.sg
‘Jo n l ug ed lovely l ug .’
33. sii aa-ne uccii caɽʰaayii caɽhii
16
Sita-erg high.f.sg climb.f.sg climb.perf.f.sg
‘Si climbed ig climb.’
Adjectives can be employed in these constructions even when the cognate object
is absent, indicating the presence of an implicit object that the adjective modifies.9
Consider examples (34-36).
34. mariiz-ne g ŋd hukkeyaa
patient-erg dirty.m.sg spit.perf.m.sg
‘T e p ien sp dir y spi .’
35. sii aa-ne pyaaraa h sseyaa
Sita-erg lovely.m.sg laugh.perf.m.sg
‘Si l ug ed lovely l ug .’
36. sii aa-ne uccaa caɽheyaa
Sita-erg high.m.sg climb.perf.m.sg
9Implicit objects have been understood in the literature as either null syntactic categories, pronominals or
variables (Brody & Marzini, 1987; Bhatt & Pancheva, 2006; Chomsky, 1986; Epstein, 1984; Jackendoff,
1987; Roeper, 1987; Safir, 1991). Landau (2010) makes a further distinction between strong and weak
implicit arguments, based on their feature sets. While strong implicit arguments (PRO and pro) according
to him contain a D-feature along with a phi-feature set, weak implicit arguments (passive agents and
implicit objects) contain phi-features but lack a D-feature. We contend that implicit objects of Punjabi
unergative predicates are weak implicit argumen s (à l Landau) without a D-feature.
17
‘Si climbed ig climb.’
Implicit objects, however, cannot trigger agreement with the modifying adjectives
and the verbs, as illustrated in the examples above. The verb and the adjective instead
manifest default (3 person, masculine, singular) morphology. Implicit objects also fail to
produce telicity effects, as shown in (37-39); adjectives are used here to depict the
presence of an underlying implicit object.
37. *mariiz-ne ikk nte vicc g ŋd u ey
patient-erg one hour in dirty.m.sg spit.perf.m.sg
‘T e p ien sp a dirty spit in n our.’
38. *sii aa-ne ikk nte vicc pyaaraa h sseyaa
Sita-erg one hour in lovely.m.sg laugh.perf.m.sg
‘Si l ug ed very lovely l ug in n our.’
39. *sii aa-ne i nte vicc uccaa caɽheyaa
Sita-erg one hour in high.m.sg climb.perf.m.sg
‘Si climbed ig climb in n our.’
The inability of implicit objects to trigger verbal/adjectival agreement and
generate telicity effects is also attested in the transitive domain. Consider transitive
predic es ‘ o e ’, ‘ o drin ’, nd ‘ o i ’, which allow null or implicit objects.10
10Thanks to a reviewer for suggesting a comparison with transitive predicates. On the question of an
underlying structural representation for implicit objects, we suggest that they are NPs without a D-feature
(on lines with Landau, 2010) that may be modified by APs. We also assume that these NPs (or more
18
40. sii -ne d d
Sita-erg eat.perf.m.sg
‘Si e.’
41. sii -ne r m-n l c ŋd m riy . e ajj sii -ne pher [ ]No m riy
Sita-erg Ram-acc yesterday slap.f.pl hit.perf.f.pl. And today Sita-erg again hit.perf.f.pl
‘Si sl pped R m yes erd y, nd g in od y.’
Implicit objects in transitives can be modified with adjectives. However, there is
no agreement relation between the implicit object and the verb or the adjective (42-43).
Contrast these with transitive constructions with overt objects (44-45), with object-verb
as well as object-adjective agreement.
42. sii -ne nd a d d aa
Sita-erg cold.m.sg eat.perf.m.sg
‘Si e cold food.’
43. sii -ne zord aar maareyaa
Sita-erg strong hit.perf.m.sg
‘Si i ig sl p.’
44. sii -ne ndi rotti d d ii
Sita-erg cold.f.sg bread.f.sg eat.perf.f.sg
precisely their N0 heads) do not undergo incorporation into verbal (V0) heads (à l Hale and Keyser, 1993)
but rather enter into case-phi features relations like other overt nominals. The absence of a D feature
suppresses the morphological realization of agreement features and case.
19
‘Si e cold bre d.’
45. sii -ne zord r c ŋd m rii
Sita-erg strong slap.f.sg hit.perf.f.sg
‘Si i ig sl p.’
Implicit objects in transitives also fail to trigger telicity effects, as illustrated by the
unacceptable sentences in (46-47).
46.* sii -ne i nte vicc nd a d d
Sita-erg one hour in cold.m.sg eat.perf.m.sg
‘Si e cold food in n our.’
47. * sii -ne i nte vicc zord r maareyaa
Sita-erg one hour in strong hit.perf.m.sg
‘Sita hit a strong blow in n our.’
The evidence presented thus far (42-47) further substantiates our claim that
Punjabi unergatives are underlying transitives. They host either overt cognate objects or
implicit objects. Overt cognate objects behave like overt objects of transitive verbs with
regard to agreement and telicity effects. Implicit objects of both types of predicates, on
the other hand, pattern similarly and fail to trigger agreement and telicity effects.
Interestingly, despite their transitive nature, ergative marking for the subjects of
all (simplex) unergatives in the perfective aspec is no oblig ory: ‘ o spi ' nd ‘ o
scr c ’ ke obligatory ergative subjects, while ‘ o climb’ nd ‘ o l ug ’ e em
20
optionally. If transitivity was a true determinant of morphological ergativity in the
perfective, we would incorrectly predict obligatory ergative subject marking for all
simplex unergatives. Since the data discussed above suggest otherwise, we fail to
establish a link between transitivity of the lexical unergative verb and the ergative
marking on the subject.
Another impor n piece of evidence g ins e s id lin comes from e ‘ o
climb’ verb f ils o os erg ive marked subjects with implicit objects (48); we mark
the presence of an implicit object with an empty bracket below.
48. kuɽii/* kuɽii-ne [ ]NP caɽhii
girl.nom/*girl-erg [ ]NP climb.perf.f.sg
‘T e girl climbed.’
We have already presented evidence for an implicit object for the unergative verb
‘ o climb’ (see example (36) again). Despite the transitive nature of the lexical verb,
ergative marking is absent in (48). This further substantiates our claim that Punjabi
morphological ergativity is not related to the transitivity of the unergative verb.
4. On the role of the light verb in ergative case marking
Platts (1874) was the first to observe that it is not the transitivity of the lexical
verb, but that of the light verb, which determines ergative case marking on subjects of
lexical verb-light verb complexes in Hindi-Urdu. Since then, similar observations have
21
been made by Amritavalli (1979). Consider the examples below, where a light verb
lenaa ‘ o e’ combines wi e r nsi ive verb ‘ o e ’ in (49) nd wi e unerg ive
verb ‘ o sneeze’ in (50).
49. jɔn-ne khaanaa khaa liyaa
John-erg food.m.sg eat take.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n e e food.’
50. jɔn-ne c liy
John-erg sneeze take.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n s sneezed.’
In both instances, the subject is marked with an ergative case. In contrast, an
unaccusative light verb and a transitive lexical verb complex will never take an ergative
subject (51).
51. jɔn/*jɔn-ne saarii rotti khaa gayaa
John.nom/*John-erg all.f.sg bread.f.sg eat go.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n e e en ire lo f of bre d.’
Mahajan (2012) however opines that while the lexical verb in ergative subject
constructions (49-50) must be transitive, the ergative case essentially comes from the
light verb v. According to him, light verbs in most languages have lexical verb
counterparts that show compatibility with nominals marked with certain cases. It is also
generally the case that light verbs replic e eir lexic l coun erp r ’s c se ssigning
22
properties. In other words, if a lexical verb obligatorily takes an ergative subject, its light
verb form automatically takes one too. He uses this connection between the light verb
and its lexical verb counterpart to argue that ergative case in Hindi-Urdu is assigned by
light verb heads.
This section borrows some es s from M j n’s wor o ev lu e e ergative
case licensing potential of Punjabi light verbs with unergative predicates. The data
presented here suggests that Punjabi light verbs do not determine ergative marking on
subjects. Light verbs that as lexical verbs license compulsory ergative are shown to
either optionally assign ergative in unergative-light verb complexes or rule it out
completely in favor of nominative. We therefore claim that ergative case is not
determined by the case-assigning properties of the light verb.
Punjabi light verbs include jaanaa ‘ o go’, aanaa ‘ o come’, paanaa ‘ o find’,
cukaanaa ‘ o p y’, lainaa ‘ o e’, d enaa ‘ o give’. ‘To go’ nd ‘ o come’ e nomin ive
case as lexical verbs in the perfective (52)11. As light verbs, they can only combine with
unaccusative verbs and obligatorily license nominative subjects (53).
52. jɔn gayaa
11The light verb ‘to come’ yields serial verb interpretations as shown in the following example.
(i) o nacc aayaa
3.sg.nom dance come.perf.m.sg
‘He d nced nd c me back.’
23
John.nom go.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n wen .’
53. jɔn/*jɔn-ne dubb gayaa
John.nom/*John-erg drown go.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n drowned.’
O er predic es ‘ o find’, ‘ o i ’ nd ‘ o p y’ oblig orily e erg ive subjec s s
lexical verbs. This is illustrated with an ex mple wi ‘ o p y’ in (54).
54. jɔn-ne/*jɔn u r cu y
John-erg/*John.nom debt pay.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n p id back e deb .’
As light verbs, all three combine with transitive and unergative predicates. While
‘ o find’ nd ‘ o p y’ e nominative subjects obligatorily (55-56), ‘ o i ’ es only
ergative subjects in light verb complexes (57-58).
55. jɔn/*jɔn-ne d illii vekh cukeyaa sii
John.nom/*John-erg delhi see pay.perf.m.sg be.pst.3.sg
‘Jo n d seen Del i.’
56. jɔn/*jɔn-ne nacc/nicch cukeyaa sii
John-nom/*John-erg dance/sneeze pay.perf.m.sg be.pst.3.sg
‘Jo n d d nced sneezed.’
57. jɔn-ne/*jɔn sii -n kutt maaryaa
24
John-erg/*John.nom Sita-acc beat hit.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n be up Si .’
58. jɔn-ne jor naal nicch maarii
John-erg force with sneeze hit.perf.f.sg
‘Jo n sneezed forcefully.’
Verbs ‘ o give’ nd ‘ o e’ occur wi only erg ive subjec s in e perfec ive s
lexical verbs (59). As light verbs, they combine with transitives with obligatory ergative
subjects (60) and with unergatives, they take ergative subjects optionally (61).12
59. jɔn-ne/*jɔn sii -n /kolõ i b di ii li ii
John-erg/*John.nom Sita-dat/abl book.f.sg give.perf.f.sg/take.perf.f.sg
‘Jo n g ve boo o Si Jo n oo boo from Si .’
60. jɔn-ne/*jɔn sii -n ve li
John-erg/*John.nom Sita-acc see take.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n s w Si .’
61. jɔn/jɔn-ne n cc li
John.nom/John-erg dance take.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n d nced.’
These patterns are summarized in the table below.
25
Table 1. Case licensing patterns with Punjabi light verbs
Predicate As main
verb
As light verb with
Unaccusative Unergative Transitive/Ditransitive
Erg subj Nom
subj
Erg subj Nom
subj
Erg subj Nom subj
‘To
come’
Nom subj - - - -
‘To find’ Erg subj - -
‘To p y’ Erg subj - -
‘To i ’ Erg subj - -
‘To give’ Erg subj - -
‘To e’ Erg subj - -
As we see in this table, there are two patterns in unergative-light verb
constructions that clearly attest that the case properties of light verbs are not crucial for
ergative marking on subjects. We discuss them below, while repeating some relevant
examples and providing some new ones.
First, predicates ‘ o find’ nd ‘ o p y’ oblig orily take ergative subjects as lexical
verbs (62). However, as light verbs, they fail to retain an ergative subject, which are
instead obligatorily marked nominative in unergative (and transitive) contexts (63).
62. jɔn-ne/*jɔn u r cu y
John-erg/*John.nom debt pay.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n p id e deb .’
63. jɔn/*jɔn-ne nacc/nicch cukeyaa sii
26
John.nom/*John-erg dance/sneeze pay.perf.m.sg be.pst.3.sg
‘Jo n d d nced sneezed.’
Second, predic es ‘ o give’ nd ‘ o e’, which compulsorily opt for an ergative
subject as lexical verbs (64), only optionally allow ergative subjects when acting as light
verbs in unergative complexes (65).
64. jɔn-ne/*jɔn sii -n /kolõ i aab di ii
John-erg/*John.nom Sita-dat/abl book.f.sg give.perf.f.sg
‘Jo n g ve boo o Si .’
65. jɔn/jɔn-ne nicch di
John.nom/John-erg sneeze give.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n sneezed.’
The picture with transitive verbs is slightly different. Transitive subjects get
obligatory nominative with 'ergative-licensing' light verbs 'to pay' and 'to find' and
obligatory ergative with 'ergative-licensing' light verbs 'to give' and 'to take'. The first
scenario is not of case-retention; hence, it does not support the claim that light verbs
retain the ergative case assigning property of their lexical counterparts. The second,
where the ergative case seems to be retained, is the one that demands further
explanation, since prima facie, these cases are evidence of ergative case-licensing by
certain light verbs. We would however like to suggest that these specific cases too fail
to prove the ergative licensing potential of light verbs. This is because all transitive
27
verbs that light verbs ‘ o give’ nd ‘ o e’ combine wi , including vekhnaa 'to see',
maarnaa 'to hit', kajjna ‘ o cover’, khaanaa ‘ o e ’, piinaa ‘ o drin ’ and ginna ‘ o coun ’
individually (i.e. as simplex verbs) opt for obligatory ergative subjects in the perfective.
When these transitive predicates combine with ergative-licensing light verbs, the
subjects are also marked ergative. This renders it difficult to decide whether to attribute
the availability of ergative case on subjects to light verbs or to lexical transitive verbs.
Interestingly, all Hindi-Urdu speakers that we consulted have the same intuitions for
their language: ergative subjects are compulsory with transitive verbs in the perfective,
with or without the said light verbs. Hence, as for Punjabi, for Hindi-Urdu too, it is
difficult to confirm that ergative case comes from the light verbs, instead of the lexical
verb, contra Mahajan's claims.13
There is however one particular verb in Hindi-Urdu, samajhnaa ‘ o unders nd’,
which optionally takes an ergative subject. Mahajan illustrates that when this verb
combines wi e lig verb ‘ o e’, the ergative case marking on the subject becomes
obligatory. He takes this as a solid evidence for ergative case-licensing by the light verb.
13We agree with a reviewer that light verbs denote different meanings (completion, ability etc) and
therefore the underlying representations of complex predicates may be far more detailed than what has
been suggested in this paper. While such alternative analyses do exist in the literature (cf. Butt and
Ramchand, 2005), we feel that adopting them would take us away from the core issues addressed here –
that of transitivity of the lexical verb and the case potential of the light verb in ergative case assignment
on the subject. Hence, we keep this question aside for the moment.
28
Punjabi shows similar patterns with the same verb s mj naa ‘ o unders nd’ as
illustrated in the examples below.
66. o ae gall samj eyaa
3.sg.nom this matter.f.sg understand.perf.m.sg
‘He unders ood is m er.’
67. o-ne ae gall samj ii
3.sg-erg this matter.f.sg understand.perf.f.sg
‘He unders ood is m er.’
T e predic e ‘ o unders nd’ llows bo nominative and ergative subjects (66-
67). W en is predic e combines wi e oblig orily erg ive subjec ing verb ‘ o
give’, the resultant complex structure allows only ergative subjects (68-69).
68. o-ne ae gall samj li ii
3.sg-erg this matter.f.sg understand take.perf.f.sg
‘He unders ood is m er.’
69. *o ae gall samj li a
3.sg.nom this matter.f.sg understand take.perf.m.sg
‘He unders ood e m er.’
Unlike Mahajan, who takes a similar contrast (as in Punjabi (68-69)) in Hindi-
Urdu to indicate that ergative case comes from the light verb, we believe that this data
too is inconclusive. ‘To unders nd’ s optional ergative case licensing property (see
29
examples in (66-67) again). The ergative case in (68) could therefore come from the
predicate ‘ o unders nd’ as much as from the light verb. Moreover, with the light verb
cukaanaa ‘ o p y’, which as a lexical verb licenses obligatory ergative (as already
discussed bove) ‘to understand’ forms a complex predicate with an obligatory
nominative subject (70). This suggests that in the unergative as well as the transitive
domain, the light verb does not determine ergative case assignment on the subject. A
similar pattern in observed in Hindi-Urdu as well (71).
70. jɔn/*jɔn-ne ae gall samjh cukeyaa sii
John.nom/*John-erg this matter.f.sg understand pay.perf.m.sg be.pst.3.sg
‘Jo n d unders ood e m er.’
71. jɔn/*jɔn-ne ye baat samajh cukaa haa
John.nom/*John-erg this matter.f.sg understand pay.perf.m.sg be.pst.3.sg
‘Jo n d unders ood e m er.’
Thus far, we have provided evidence that Punjabi unergatives have overt
cognate or implicit objects. Despite their transitive nature, they fail to host ergative
subjects obligatorily, indicating that the transitivity of the lexical verb is not a determinant
of morphological ergativity in the language. We have further illustrated that the light
verbs in unergative light verb complexes too do not determine ergative case marking.
We now face the task of locating the locus of ergative case licensing in unergative
constructions in Punjabi. An additional question is regarding the mechanisms underlying
30
optionality of morphological ergativity in these constructions. In more precise terms, we
want to understand the structural contexts under which ergative is assigned and the
conditions that block its assignment, leading to nominative case valuation of the
external argument.
5. Analysis
Before presenting our analysis, we investigate three influential accounts of
morphological ergativity in the literature. We demonstrate that all three approaches - the
dependent case approach, the clausal-bifurcation/added-structure approach and the
inherent case approach – fall short of an adequate explanation for ergative case
assignment in the Punjabi unergative domain.
Marantz (1991) proposes a dependent case analysis of ergative assignment that
takes place in a post-syntactic morphological component. He posits that ergative, like
accusative, is a dependent case assigned in a distinct position governed by V+I. The
basic idea is as stated in (72)14:
14Baker (2013) too adopts the dependent case approach to account for ergativity in Shipibo. However,
unlike Marantz who proposes that the domain for case competition between the two distinct DPs is a
clause, Baker claims it to be a phase. This is stated as follows:
(i) If there are two distinct argumental NPs in the same phase such that NP1 c-commands NP2, then
value the case feature of NP1 as ergative unless NP2 has been marked for case.
31
72. If there are two distinct NPs in the same clause ("governed by V+I") then:
Mark the lower one with dependent case (accusative) and/or
Mark the higher one with dependent case (ergative).
According to (72), in a nominative-accusative language, accusative case is a
dependent case that is assigned to a lower nominal when the higher nominal gets a
nominative case. Accusative is blocked in instances, when the higher nominal gets a
non-nominative/quirky case. Similarly, in an ergative-absolutive system, it is the higher
nominal that gets the dependent ergative case, when the lower nominal gets an
absolutive case.
However, (72) cannot be easily extended to the Punjabi unergative data. As we
have already observed, within the ergative case system of the language in the
perfective, there are two possible cases on the unergative subject – nominative and
ergative (73).
73. jɔn/ jɔn-ne raavan-d ii hassii sseyaa
John.nom/John-erg ravan-gen.f.sg laughter.f.sg laugh.perf.f.sg
‘John laughed Ravan’s laughter.’
Assuming that the accusative case on the (cognate) object comes from a
functional head, the higher nominal, according to (72), must always carry an ergative
case, contra facts. On the other hand, if the case on the object is inherent, we predict
obligatory nominative on the subject, again contradicting the actual facts. Either way,
32
the optionality of ergative case on the unergative subject remains a problem for the
dependent case approach, unless we assume that the object can carry both inherent
and structural case in the same syntactic context.
An alternative approach proposed by Laka (2006), Coon (2010) and, Coon and
Preminger (2012) based on clause-bifurcation or added-structure presents split
ergativity as an epiphenomenon. Take the two structures (74-75) from Basque for
illustration. In (74), the subject of the progressive clause is marked with –a. This is the
same marker found on the object of the perfective clause, whose subject is marked with
the ergative case –ak (75).
74. emakume-a ogi-a jaten ari da
woman-DET bread-DET eating PROG is
‘The woman is eating (the) bread.’
75. emakume-a-k ogi-ak ja-n d-it-u
woman-DET-Erg bread-DET.PL eat-PRF 3A-PL-have3E
‘The woman has eaten (the) bread.’ (L , 2006: 177)
According to Laka, the progressive in (75) has a biclausal structure, with the
main verb –ari ‘ o be engaged' selecting a PP ('in something'). This is shown in (76).
76. [IP emakume-a[V2P [PP [NP [V1P PRO [DP ogi-a] jan V1] N] P] ari V2] I]
In (76), the object –ogi ‘bre d’ and the lexical verb jaten ‘e ’ are placed inside a
PP clause. The external argument of this subordinate clause is a PRO that is generated
33
in the specifier of VP. The higher clause has the progressive marker -ari as its predicate
and emakume ‘ e wom n’ as the subject generated in the specifier of TP. The matrix
subject is marked absolutive, and not ergative, since it is not a transitive subject – it is
the argument of an unaccusative verb -ari (also see Forker, 2010; Kazenin, 1998, 2001;
Kazenin and Testelec, 1999 for similar proposals for Nakh-Daghestanian languages).
In the perfective aspect, both the external as well as the internal argument are
present in the same clause, with the former getting ergative and the latter getting
absolutive case marked (77).
77. [ IP emakume-ak [VP [DP ogi-ak] janV] dituI]
Coon (2010) and Coon and Preminger (2012) extend the analysis further to other
split-ergative languages by arguing that clausal bifurcation or added-structure is an
essential feature of non-perfective aspects: these are constructed using spatial/locative
building blocks (also see Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca, 1994; Demirdache and Uribe-
Etxebarria, 2000). These large clause structures embedded below the predicate
obscure the transitivity of the predicate for the case assigning system. Consequently,
the external argument is marked nominative. Less structure renders e predic e’s
transitivity visible, thereby leading to ergative case assignment to the external
argument.15
15As Coon and Preminger (2012) rightly point out, the clausal bifurcation analysis is compatible with
Marantz's dependent case analysis. If the matrix subject is generated in a clause different from the one
that hosts the internal argument, it will fail to receive a dependent ergative case.
34
The primary appeal of this analysis is that it hinges on the difference between
imperfective and perfective aspects, which we believe need serious consideration in an
explanation of aspect-based split ergativity. Moreover, it also seeks to explain
morphological ergativity within the confines of the narrow syntactic component, rather
than pushing it to the interfaces. However, some problems arise when we turn our
attention to Punjabi unergatives with optionally marked ergative subjects in the
perfective. If we adopt the clause bifurcation analysis, we must allow them two different
representations: (78) for sentences with nominative subjects, and (79) for sentences
with ergative subjects.
78. [DP [PRO obj V1] V2]
79. [DP obj V]
This however defeats the purpose since the perfective (78) with the nominative
subject now resembles the imperfective structure representation: it has a PRO subject
in the embedded clause and another in the matrix clause. The higher subject is marked
with nominative due to its location in a higher clause. The problem with this approach is
that it necessitates Punjabi to have similar clause structures for imperfectives and some
perfectives (with nominative subjects).
An additional problem comes from other ergative subject constructions in the
perfective (80), where (i) the matrix subject is marked ergative and, (ii) matrix and
35
embedded verbs both carry default morphology16. A very similar perfective sentence,
but with long-distance matrix verb-embedded object agreement is shown in (81).
80.?jɔn-ne rottii khaanaa caayaa
John-erg bread.f.sg.nom eat.inf.m want.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n w n ed o e bre d.’
81. jɔn-ne rottii khaanii caayii
John-erg bread.f.sg.nom eat.inf.f want.perf.f.sg
‘Jo n w n ed o e bre d.’
As has been noticed previously by Bhatt (2005), Chandra (2007, 2011) among
others, Hindi-Urdu also has both constructions – ergative subject constructions in the
perfective without long-distance agreement (non-LDA) and ergative subject
constructions in the perfective with long-distance agreement (LDA). Bhatt explains the
optionality of LDA by positing a PRO in the embedded structures of (80) that act as
interveners between matrix v and the lower argument (82). In contrast, (81) has no
embedded PRO-subject, and therefore, no intervening element to prevent a long-
distance phi-relation between the two elements (83). Both representations can be
extended to the Punjabi facts in (80)-(81).
82. [Subj-ne [PRO obj V1] V2]
83. [Subj-ne [obj V1] V2]
16 Some Punjabi speakers have obligatory matrix verb-embedded object agreement.
36
The representation in (82) is of utmost important here. The non-LDA structure
has an embedded PRO subject, and resembles an imperfective representation à
la Laka and Coon among others. However, this is a perfective structure, and even more
importantly, one that has an ergative subject (not a nominative one), despite appearing
in a clause separate from the one hosting the embedded object. If clause bifurcation
was a real factor behind nominative case assignment on the matrix subject, we would
incorrectly expect obligatory nominative case on the matrix subject in (82).
The final approach we would like to discuss here is the inherent case analysis of
ergativity. Woolford (1997) claims that ergative is an inherent case, assigned in close
association with the agent theta role and, hence, found only on external arguments. She
also proposes that inherent case is licensed by the v head that introduces the external
argument. Legate (2012) makes an important amendment to this, by suggesting that
ergative case should not be linked to the agent theta role alone. All external theta roles
including causative, experiencer, instrumental can also get ergative case. We show
below that this is indeed true for ergative case in Punjabi which can appear on (i) agents
(84), (ii) experiencer external arguments (85) and (iii) causer/instrumental external
arguments (86).
84. jɔn-ne sii aa-n maaryaa
John-erg Sita-acc hit.perf.m.sg
‘Jo n i Si .’
37
85. jɔn-ne (jabardastii) m rii-n pyaar i
John-erg (forcibly) Mary-acc love do.perf.m.sg
‘John loved Mary (forcibly).’
86. hawaa-ne kapɽe ud d i e
air-erg cloth.m.pl fly.caus give.perf.m.pl
‘Air made the clothes fly.’
As shown in (84), ergative appears on the agent of the predicate 'hit'. In (85), the
subject DP is ergative case marked even as it gets the experiencer theta role from the
predicate ‘love’. However, note that such sentences must have the light verb ‘do’, nd
there is a certain amount of volitional/intentional meaning built into it (which explains
w y n in en ion l dverb ‘forcibly’ makes perfect sense here), which is clearly absent
when the said light verb is missing and the subject is marked with a dative (87). Finally,
in (86), the instrumental or the causer subject gets marked with the ergative case. In
short, we have evidence that Punjabi ergative case is an inherent case that can appear
on external arguments that generate in the specifier of the theta-assigning v head.
87. jɔn-n (*jabardastii) m rii naal pyaar hoyaa
John-dat (*forcibly) Mary with love happen.perf.m.sg
'John fell in love with Mary.'
That said, the issue of optional ergative marking on Punjabi unergative subjects
in the perfective remains a problem for this theory as well. One needs to further
38
examine the conditions under which nominative is sometimes valued on the subject,
instead of it being always valued with inherent case by the theta-assigning v head.
Along with an explanation of how both ergative and nominative case are valued on the
unergative subject, there is the issue of aspect's role in ergative case-assignment in the
language. In other words, the explanation must take into account featural as well as
structural differences between perfective and imperfective heads that may have
important consequences on the agreement and case relations that the arguments
establish with different heads in the respective structures.
5.2 An alternative analysis
Our point of departure is an important difference between perfective and
imperfective heads in Punjabi. Punjabi perfective aspect heads have an incomplete set
of uninterpretable features (uFF), unlike imperfective aspect heads that have complete
phi-feature sets. Perfective heads are participial in nature and lack a person feature.
This has been attested in the historical literature as well, where the perfective aspect in
modern Indo-Aryan languages is shown to be closely linked with the passive participial -
-taa constructions of Old Indo Aryan (Sanskrit) and Middle Indo Aryan
(Apabhramsa) (see Bubenik, 1998; Butt and Deo, 2001; Garrett, 1990; Hock, 1986;
Hook, 1991; Speijer, 1886; Trask, 1979). Take the passive participial construction in
Sanskrit in (88).
39
88. Indrenaa hato/hataa vali
Indra.Instr.sg.masc. kill.PPP.Nom.sg Vali.Nom.sg.masc.
‘Vali was killed by Indra.’ (Stronsky, 2010:83)
Scholars believe that structures like (88) developed into ergative subject
constructions in the perfective aspect in modern Indo Aryan languages, with the passive
participial -taa developing into the perfective -aa. This development was accompanied
by the instrumental case marker -enaa on the subject changing to the ergative case
marker -ne (Chandra and Udaar, 2012).
The diachronic relation between the old passive participial head in Sanskrit and
the perfective head in the modern ergative construction establishes that the latter is phi
(person) feature defective. This incomplete feature composition has interesting
consequences for optional ergative marking on unergative subjects, as we will detail
below.17
Two other notions our analysis relies on heavily are that of phases and phase-
sliding. We assume with Boeckx (2008, 2009), Chomsky (2000, 2004, 2005, 2007,
2008) and Gallego (2010) among others, that computations progress phase by phase,
recursively accessing small sub-arrays drawn from the lexicon. These sub-arrays are
assumed to determine syntactic objects that are interpretable at the interfaces; on the
17Anand and Nevins (2006) also point out that v heads in ergative subject constructions in the perfective
are phi-defective and lack a person feature.
40
semantic side, these syntactic objects are taken as counterparts to propositions (cf.
Chomsky, 2000).18 Phase heads (generally taken to be C and v) define the domains for
computations and once these computations are complete, a phase is shipped over to
the interfaces by the Transfer operation (89).
89. Cyclic Transfer
Transfer hands D[erivation]-NS over to [PHON] and [SEM]
[Chomsky 2004: 107]
Transfer hands over the complements (VP and TP) of phase (v and C) heads to
the interfaces. There are two versions on the timing of Transfer. According to the first
(Chomsky, 2000) – also known as strong version of the Phase Impenetrability Condition
(PIC), the complement of a phase is spelled out as soon as the phase head is
introduced into the derivation; for instance, VP complement is spelled out when v is
introduced. There is a second version of the PIC (Chomsky, 2001) that assumes that
the complement of a phase is spelled out only when a higher phase head is introduced
(90).
90. [ZP Z… [HP α [H YP]]], where Z and H are phase heads.
As shown in (90), YP is targeted for spell-out only when the next higher phase
head Z is introduced into the derivation. Once the complement undergoes transfer, only
18Gallego (2010) understands phases as structural domains/boundaries in which uninterpretable features
of core functional categories are valued and deleted.
41
the head and its edge (H and α) remain accessible to higher heads for further
computations. We adopt the second and the weaker version of PIC for our analysis of
optional ergative with unergatives in Punjabi.
Finally, with Gallego (2007, 2010), we assume that phase heads can be
extended (or "slided")19 to the next higher head. This kind of head-movement can be
understood as a sort of "upstairs inheritance" with two consequences: (i) it extends the
'checking domain' (in the sense of Chomsky, 1995), and (ii) it re-determines the phase
boundary, in terms of the structure that is shipped off as part of Transfer. Below, we
reproduce from Gallego, an instance of v*-T phase sliding, with the effect that TP
becomes a phase and v*P the spell-out domain (91).20
19Den Dikken's (2006, 2007) proposes a ‘Phase Extension Condition’, which similarly extends the domain
of operation, though there are some crucial differences between Gallego’s and his understanding of
phases.
20Some works place head movement in the PF component (Abels, 2003; Boeckx and Stjepanovic, 2001;
and Chomsky, 2001). However, the issue remains contentious with others (Den Dikken, 2006; Donati,
2006; Matushansky, 2006) raising problems with the PF-approach.
42
91.
Following Gallego, we contend that Punjabi ergative case marking in unergative
constructions obtains in structural contexts with phase-sliding of a lower head to a
higher one. In perfective structures with nominative subjects, phase-sliding is not
available. The details are given below.
Take an ergative subject construction with an unergative predicate in (92). Its
structural representation is given below in (93).
92. kuɽii-ne n ccey ŋgey ssey
girl-erg dance/cough/laugh.perf.m.sg
‘The girl danced/ coughed/ laughed.’
43
93.
The tree in (93) is a double-layered vP structure. The higher v1 is a
perfective/participial head –aa/-yaa, which is phi-defective (-person), while the lower v2
is a transitive v (phase) head with complete phi features. v2-v1 phase sliding takes
place, with the phase boundary being pushed up to v1. Next, the phi-set of the resultant
verbal complex seeks a goal. However, it cannot agree with the external argument and
assign it a structural case value, since the DP has received a theta-role by the same
head. This is under the assumption that a DP cannot enter into a phi-agreement relation
and structural case valuation with the same head which selects and theta-assigns it
(Rezac, 2008; Woolford, 2006). The verbal complex then seeks out the internal
argument (overt cognate object/implicit object) and values it an accusative case in
return of phi-values. The external argument on the other hand, is assigned an inherent
44
ergative case from the theta-checking head. Ergative case assignment, according to
this analysis, is therefore not assigned to the external argument immediately upon its
introduction into the derivation.
As for the features of T, which we assume are inherited from C (Chomsky, 2008;
Richards, 2007), they cannot probe inside v2P and seek out the external argument,
since by the time C is introduced in the derivation, the v2P complement of the v1P
phase has been spelled out and its contents made inaccessible or inert for
computations with higher heads. Most importantly, the external argument cannot move
to the specifier of v1P due to anti locality restrictions (Abels, 2003; Grohmann, 2003)
that disallows too local movement. In other words, the DP cannot move from the
specifier of v2P to the specifier of a complex containing v2 as it is a very local
movement – in this case, v1P's specifier position, in any, will be projected using features
of v2. The other possibility, as pointed out by a reviewer, is that both arguments are
case-valued before merging T into the derivation. This makes them inaccessible or
invisible for phi operations with C-T.
C-T has the option of valuing its uFF with an expletive pro in TP's specifier or
simply getting a default value (as a last resort) before the structure is shipped off to the
interfaces. Sentence (94) illustrates default morphology on an optionally present
45
auxiliary –sii at T, in the presence of an ergative marked feminine DP subject and a
feminine DP object.21
94. m rii-ne raavan-d ii hasii ssii sii
Mary-erg ravan-gen.f.sg laugh.f.sg laugh.perf.m.sg be.past.3.m.sg
'Mary laughed Ravan's laughter.'
Next, we address optional nominative marking on unergative subjects in the
perfective. For such constructions (95), we assign a similar structure, minus v2 to v1
phase sliding (96).
95. kuɽii n ccii ŋgii ssii
girl.nom dance/cough/laugh.perf.f.sg
‘The girl danced/ coughed/ laughed.’
96.
21Hindi-Urdu is different from Punjabi in that its auxiliaries also agree with the null-marked accusative
object, indicating that its T is involved in a phi-relation with the DP.
46
In (96), there is no phase sliding of v2 to v1. Consequently, v2 (and not v1) is the
phase head. The v2 head, with its uninterpretable features checks them against the
internal argument and values it accusative. v1 being defective (phi incomplete) cannot
be a probe. Next, when C-T is merged, agreement takes place between C-T and the
external argument, with full phi feature valuation corresponding to person, number and
gender morphology on T, and nominative case on the external argument. Note that the
external argument is at the edge of the lower v2P phase, and hence is visible to C-T.
This explains how nominative case by T can be (optionally) assigned to the external
argument in perfective structures. As for the unvalued features on v1, we assume that
they will be valued via the operation Multiple Agree (97). C-T will agree simultaneously
and derivationally with both v1 and the external argument.
47
97. Multiple Agree (multiple feature checking) with a single probe is a single
simultaneous syntactic operation; Agree applies to all the matched goals at the same
derivational point derivationally, simultaneously. (Hiraiwa, 2000)
Importantly, this optionality vanishes with certain predicates. ‘To spit’ and ‘to
scratch’ require an ergative subject obligatorily, while predicates ‘to walk’ and ‘to climb’
take obligatory nominative in the absence of an overt object. We propose that the
former class (‘to spit’, ‘to scratch’) only have the first option available to them, which
requires phase sliding from v2 to v1, resulting in obligatory ergative. The second class
(‘to walk’, ‘to climb’) cannot slide the phase boundary, and gets only nominative
subjects. This therefore calls for some lexical idiosyncrasies in the language; certain
verbs necessitate phase-sliding, while some others obligatorily block it.
Moving on to complex unergatives with light verbs (98), we observe that the
perfective aspect –aa is carried on the light verb.
98. kuɽii-ne ss d i aa
girl-erg laugh give.perf.m.sg
‘The girl laughed.’
For (98), we assume that the light verb is placed at v1 – the aspect head – and
being uFF-defective (-person), v2 moves to v1, creating a v1P phase. The rest of the
derivation continues in the same manner as for simplex unergatives. The implicit object
gets an accusative case from the verbal complex, while the external argument is
48
assigned ergative by the v head. In instances where phase-sliding does not take place,
C-T accesses the external argument at the edge of the lower phase v2P, and values it
nominative.
Finally, for imperfective unergative constructions with obligatory nominative
subjects (99), we propose the representation in (100).
99. kuɽii/*kuɽii-ne khurak/nacc/caɽh rayii e
girl.nom/*girl-erg scratch/dance/climb stay.prog.f.sg be.pres.3.sg
'The girl is scratching/dancing/climbing.'
100.
As shown in (100), the external argument is generated in the specifier of v2P
from where it receives a theta role. v2 checks its uninterpretable features against the
49
internal argument and values it accusative. Next, the imperfective head is introduced
into the derivation as v1. Importantly, this head, unlike the perfective head, has a
complete set of uFF. It is a phase head with an uninterpretable edge feature (in the
sense of Chomsky 2005, 2006)22. The external argument moves to the specifier of v1P
to satisfy the edge feature. As a consequence, C-T, once merged into the derivation,
probes the external argument and values it nominative. Given that inherent ergative
case on the external argument is impossible in imperfective structures, we must also
assume that the edge feature-driven movement of the DP to the specifier of v1P is
compulsory.
6. Conclusion
To conclude, we have observed that Punjabi morphological ergativity is
determined neither by the transitivity of the unergative verb nor by the case assigning
property of the light verb. Our contention is that Punjabi ergative is an inherent case
assigned to the external argument when a lower v2 phase head moves/slides to the
higher perfective (-person) v1 head. The external argument placed in the specifier of
v2P is spelled out and therefore becomes inaccessible to the nominative case valuing
head C-T. In instances when there is no phase sliding, v2P is a phase and the external
22 We also assume that v2P, being transitive, is a phase.
50
argument at its edge remains accessible to the higher C-T head for phi feature and
nominative case valuation.
While we espouse the ergative as inherent case approach for Punjabi
morphological ergativity, our analysis is also compatible with the added-structure
analysis of Laka, Coon and Preminger among others. With them, we observe that
ergative case in the perfective is assigned in a domain (vP) smaller than the one
(TP/CP) required for nominative case valuation in the imperfective. Unlike them
however, we emphasize on the feature composition of perfective and imperfective
heads and the derivational nature of 'checking' domains: the structural chunks in which
case-valuation takes place depend on the nature of uFF and operations (e.g. phase-
sliding) involved at any given point of the derivation.
If the alternative analysis proposed here is right, morphological ergativity in
typologically related languages like Hindi-Urdu too emerges in the perfective due to its
defective uFF composition, and the operations triggered thereby. Ergative case on the
subject is a result of v2P being spelled out, making the external argument inaccessible
to a higher case-valuing (C-T) head. That said, Hindi-Urdu, unlike Punjabi, also allows
object (gender and number, but not person) agreement on the auxiliary in ergative
subject constructions. Since the internal argument is shipped off to the interfaces before
C-T merges, phi-agreement on the auxiliary should be ruled out for Hindi-Urdu too,
contra facts. One possible answer to this difference is that Hindi-Urdu C-T is distinct in
51
that it inherits the feature values of the perfective v1, after the latter (v1-v2) has entered
into Agree with the internal argument (and after v2P spell-out). That in turn implies that
languages have the following options in perfective structures: (i) the uFF set on C-T is
valued by an expletive pro (e.g. Punjabi with no object agreement on the auxiliary), or
(ii) the uFF on C-T is checked against the checked features of v1 (eg. Hindi-Urdu with
object agreement on the auxiliary). However, this parametric solution is tentative and
needs to be substantiated with a more thorough cross-linguistic study of T and v heads
in these two languages.
References
Abels, K. 2003. Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding. PhD
dissertation, UConn.
Amritavalli, R. 1979. The Representation of Transitivity in the Lexicon. Linguistic
Analysis 5, 71-92.
Anand, P. & Nevins, A. 2007. The Locus of Ergative Case Assignment: Evidence from
Scope. In Ergativity: Emerging Issues, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Baker, Mark C. 2013. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by
phase. Ms. url: <http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mabaker/shipibo-ergativity-paper-
submitted.pdf>
52
Bhatia, Tej K. 1993. Punjabi: A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar. Routledge Descriptive
Grammar Series. London: Routledge.
Bhatt, R. & Pancheva, R. 2006. Implicit Arguments. In The Blackwell Companion to
Syntax, v. II, Blackwell, 554-584.
Bhatt, R. 2003. Locality in Correlatives. In Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21,
485-541. Ms. url: <http://people.umass.edu/bhatt/papers/bhatt-nllt-03.pdf>
Bhatt, R. 2007. Ergativity in the Modern Indo-Aryan Languages, handout of talk given
on Nov. 14 in the MIT Ergavitivity Seminar. Ms. url:
<http://people.umass.edu/bhatt/papers/mit-nov2007-handout.pdf>
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 23:757–807.
Bickel, B. & Yadava, Y.P. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-
Aryan. Lingua 110, 343 – 373.
Bittner, M. and Hale, K. 1996. The structural determination of Case and agreement.
Linguistic Inquiry 27:1-68.
Bobaljik, J. 1993. Ergativity and ergative unergatives. MITWPL 19:45-88.
Boec x, C. & S jep nović, S. 2001. He d-ing toward PF. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–355.
Boeckx, C. 2008. Aspects of the Syntax of Agreement. London: Routledge.
Boeckx, C. 2009. Aspects of a theory of phases. Ms, Harvard University/CLT-UAB.
53
Borer, H. 1994. The projection of arguments. In E. Benedicto and J. Runner (Eds.),
Functional projections UMass Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17. Amherst, MA:
GLSA, 19-47.
Brody, M. and Manzini, M.R. 1987. Implicit Arguments. In, Ruth Kempson (Ed.) Mental
Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality., 105–130. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bubenik, V. 1998. A Historical Syntax of late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhramsa).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Butt, M. and Deo, A. 2001. Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. In Online KURDICA Newsletter for
Kurdish Language and Studies, Volume 5. Ms. url: <http://ling.uni-
konstanz.de/pages/home/butt/>
Butt, M. and Ramchand, G. 2005. Complex Aspectual Structure in Hindi/Urdu. In N.
Ertischik-Shir and T. Rapoport (eds.) The Syntax of Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 117-153.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution Of Grammar: Tense,
Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. University of Chicago Press.
Chandra, P. 2007. (Dis)Agree: Movement and Agreement Reconsidered. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Chandra, P. 2011. (Dis)Agree: Agreement Mechanisms Explored. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing. UK.
54
Chandra, P. and Udaar, U. 2012. Indo-Aryan Ergativity: a Case of Syntactic Inertia.
Poster presented at 14th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference in July, 2012.
Lisbon, Portugal.
Cheng, L. and H., Demirdash. 1990. Trapped at the edge. On long-distance pair-list
readings. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics, Volume 120. 3. Oxford,
UK: Elsevier. 463-484.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press
Chomsky, N. 1995a. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995b. Bare phrase structure. In G. Webelhuth (ed.), Government and
Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 383–439. London: Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin et al. (Eds.) Step
by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, , 89–155. Cambridge
MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in
Language, 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and
Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, pp. 104–131. Oxford: OUP.
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind. Cambridge University Press.
55
Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H-M. Gartner
(eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from
Syntax-semantics, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In C. Otero et al (Eds.), Foundational Issues in
Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge MA: The MIT
Press, 134–166.
Comrie, B. 1978. ‘Ergativity’. In Winfred P. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies
in the Phenomenology of Language. Austin: University of Texas Press, 329–394.
Coon, J. and Preminger, O. 2012.Taking Ergativity out of Split Ergativity: A Unified
Account of Aspect and Person Splits. Ms. url: < ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001556 >.
Coon, Jessica (2010a).Complementation in Chol (Mayan): A Theory of Split Ergativity.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Davison, A. 2004. Structural case, Lexical case and the verbal projection.In V. Dayal
and A. Mahajan (Eds.), Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer,
199-225.
DeLancey, S. 1981. An Interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns.
Language. 57.3: 626-57.
Demirdache, H., M.Uribe-Etxebarria (2000). The primitives of temporal relations. In: R.
Martin, D. Michaels, J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in
Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 157-186.
56
Den Dikken, 2006. Den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and Linkers. The Syntax of
Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Den Dikken, M. 2007. Phase extension. Contours of a theory of the role of head
movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: pp. 1–41.
Deo, A. & Sharma, D. 2002. Typological Variation in the Ergative Morphology of Indo-
Aryan Languages. Manuscript, Stanford.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55, pp. 59–138.
Donati, C. 2006. On wh-head movement. In L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds.) Wh-
movement: Moving on. 21–46. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Dowty, D. 1979.Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dowty, D. 1991.Thematic Roles and Argument Selection.In Language. pp. 67-3.
Epstein, S. 1984. A Note on Functional Determination and Strong Crossover. The
Linguistic Review 3(3): pp. 299-305.
Fiengo, R. and May, R. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Forker, D. 2010. The Biabsolutive Construction in Nakh-Dagestanian: A new type of
object incorporation? Paper presented at the 8th Meeting of the Association of Linguistic
Typology, UC-Berkeley.
57
Frazier, L. 2008. Explorations in ellipsis: The grammar and processing of silence. In S.
Winkler and S. Featherston (eds) Linguistic Evidence 2008 Proceedings. Mouton de
Gruyter.
Gallego, A. 2007. Sub-extraction from phase edges. In P. Panagiotidis (ed.), The
Complementiser Phase: Subjects and Wh-dependencies. Oxford: OUP.
Gallego, A. 2010. Phase Theory. John Benjamins, B.V. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.
Grohmann K. K. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement
Dependencies. Linguistik Aktuell 66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of
Syntactic Relations.In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser. (Eds.) The View from Building 20: Essays
in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 53–109.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2000. Multiple agree and the defect intervention constraint. In Ora
Matushansky and Elena Gurzoni (Eds.), The proceedings of the HUMIT2000, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 6780. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Hock, H. H. 1986. ‘P-Oriented’ Constructions in Sanskrit. In B. Krishnamurti (Ed.), South
Asian Languages: Structure, Convergence, and Diglossia, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi,
15–26.
Hook, P. E. 1991. “On identifying the conceptual restructuring of passive as ergative in
Indo-Aryan.” In: Madhav M. Deshpande & Soraja Bhate (Eds.) Paninian studies:
58
Professor S. D. Joshi felicitation volume. University of Michigan: Center for South and
Southeast Asian Studies, 177–200.
Hornstein, N. & Nunes, J. 2008. Adjunction, labeling, and bare phrase structure.
Biolinguistics 2: 57–86.
Hornstein, N. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Basic Operations and the Minimalist Program.
Cambridge: CUP.
Jackendoff, R. 1987. Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. pp. 356.
Kachru, Y. 1987. Ergativity, subjecthood and topicality in Hindi-Urdu. Lingua :
International Review of General Linguistics, 71. Pp. 1-4.
Kachru, Y. and Pandharipande, R. 1978. On ergativity in selected South Asian
languages. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 8 (1).
K zenin, K. & J ov, G. nd Tes elec. 1999. S ru ur sos ovlj juščix. In Ale s ndr E
Kibrik (Ed.), Èlemen y c xurs ogo j zy v ipologičes om osveščenii. 314–346.
Moscow: Nasledie.
Kazenin, K. I. 1998. On patient demotion in Lak. In Leonid Kulikov and Heinz Vater
(eds.) Typology of verbal categories, 95–115. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Kazenin, K. I. 2001. Verbal reflexives and the middle voice. In M. Haspelmath et al.
(eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol.
2. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. 916–27.
59
Khokhlova, L. 2000. Typological evolution of Western NIA languages. In Berliner
Indologische Studien, band 13/14. 117-142.
Khokhlova, L. V. 2002. Syntactic Peculiarities of Rajasthani. Paper read at the 17th
European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies, Heidelberg, September 9–14.
<http://www.iaas.msu.ru/pub_on/khokhlova>.
Kidwai, A. 2010. The Cartography of Phases: Fact and Inference in Meiteilon. In: Di
Sciullo, Anna Maria and Virginia Hill (Eds.), Edges, Heads, and Projections: Interface
properties. vii. 233–262.
Kidwai, A. 2012. Hindi-Urdu -wala: Just a Description. Ms. url:
<https://www.academia.edu/
5145531/Hindi_wala>
Krifka, M. 1992. Thematic relations and links between nominal reference and temporal
constitution. In Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, (Eds.) Lexical Matters, Stanford, Ca:
CSLI. 29–53.
Laka, I. 1993.Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusative that assigns accusative.In:
Bobaljik, J., Phillips, C. (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers on Case and
Agreement I, 149–172.
Laka, Itziar. 2006. Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: The case of Basque. In
Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging
Issues. Dordrecht: Springer, 173–196.
60
Landau, Idan. 2010. The Explicit Syntax of Implicit Arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41,
357-388.
Legate, J. A. (2012). Types of ergativity. Lingua, 122(3), 181-191.
Levin, B. 1983. On the Nature of Ergativity. MIT Dissertation.
Mahajan, A. K. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and Movement Theory, Doctoral
dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mahajan, A. K. 1997. Universal Grammar and the Typology of Ergative Languages. In
A. Alexiadou and T. A. Hall (Eds.), Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological
Variation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 35–57.
Mahajan, A. K. 2012. Ergatives, Antipassives and the Overt Light v in Hindi.Lingua 122.
204–214.
Mahajan, A. K.1987. Agreement and Agreement Phrases. Unpublished Generals Paper,
MIT.
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of ESCOL, 234–253.
Matushansky, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–
109.
McGregor, W. B. (2009), Typology of Ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass,
3: 480–508.
Mithun, M. 1991. Active/Agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67: 510-
546.
61
Mohanan, T. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. CSLI Dissertations in Linguistics,
Stanford.
Oku, Satoshi 2001. “A Minimalist Theory of LF Copy”. In Alexandrova, Galina M. and
Olga Arnaudova (Eds.) The Minimalist Parameter: Selected papers from the Open
Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 21–23 March 1997.
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1986. Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque. Doctoral
dissertation, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, 111.
Pandharipande, R. 1997. A Grammar of the Marathi Language. Routledge, 1997.
Patel, P. 2007. Split Ergativity and the Nature of Agreement. Ms, UCL London.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In
Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 4), 157-
189.
Platts, J., 1874 (republished 1967). A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu Language.
Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.
Preminger, O. (2012). The absence of an implicit object in unergatives: New and Old
Evidence from Basque. Lingua, 122(3), 278-288.
Rezac, M. 2008. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and
Absolutive Displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 61-
106.
62
Richa. 2008. Unaccusativity, Unergativity and the Causative Alternation in Hindi: A
Minimalist Analysis. Doctoral thesis at Jawaharlal Nehru University 2008. Ms. url:
<http://tiger.sprachwiss.uni-konstanz.de/~jsal/ojs/dissertations/phd-richa.pdf>
Richards, M. 2007. Dynamic linearization and the shape of phases. Linguistic Analysis
33: 209–237.
Roeper, T. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic
Inquiry, 18(2), 267-310.
Safir, Ken. 1991. Evaluative Predicates and the Representation of Implicit Arguments.
In Robert Freidin (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 99-131.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Speijer, J. S. 1886. Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Private
Limited.
Stronsky, K. 2010. Approaches to Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Lingua Posnaniensis 51.1,
77–118
Subbarao, K. V. 2012. South Asian Languages: A Syntactic Typology. CUP
Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tenny, C.1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT,
Boston, MA.
63
Trask, R. L. 1979. On the origin of Ergativity. In Frans Plank (Ed.) Ergativity: Towards a
Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press. 385–406.
Tsunoda, T. 1981. Split Case-Marking Patterns in Verb Types and Tense/Aspect/Mood.
Linguistics 19, 389–438.
Udaar, U. In progress. Ergativity in Western Indo-Aryan languages. Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi.
Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (1989). On Noun Incorporation in Basque and Some of its
Consequences in the Phrase Structure. University of Connecticut, Storrs, ms.
Verkuyl, H. J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects (Vol. 15). Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Verkuyl, H. J. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and
Philosophy, 12 (1), 39-94.
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality. The Interaction between Temporal and
Atemporal Structure. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Vol. 64. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Woolford, E. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, Nominative, Objective and
Accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 181–227.
Woolford, E. 2006. Case-Agreement Mismatches. In Cedric Boeckx (Ed.) Agreement
Systems, 317-339. John Benjamins.
Woolford, E. 2013. Transitivity and Ergativity. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts.
top related